As wars go, Syria is pretty safe for Harper — so far

In making his case for extending and expanding Canada’s military campaign against Islamic State, Stephen Harper faces two political tests — in how he presents it, and in how he manages the mission itself.

For the opposition parties, there’s only one test — where they stand on the mission. Tom Mulcair and Justin Trudeau made their opposition clear in the House today, setting the stage for a good debate with clearly drawn lines; the yeas have it, but the nays will be heard in Parliament. Harper even did the opposition leaders the courtesy of sending them the text of the motion the night before, so they could come to the Commons well prepared.

Harper is asking the House to support extending the mission in northern Iraq by “up to an additional 12 months” and to expand the air campaign against Islamic State across the border into Syria. He is not proposing to send any on-the-ground military advisers into Syria.

That’s a careful approach, calibrated to keep the mission from going beyond what Canadians are prepared to accept. The pilots of the six CF-18s and the Aurora surveillance aircraft stationed in Kuwait right now will be in no more danger over Syria than they are over Iraq. IS doesn’t have anti-aircraft missiles and the Syrians aren’t likely to fire on Canadian jets.

As the Americans and other allies have done in attacking IS positions in Syria, Canada doubtless will notify Damascus of air attacks, without seeking its permission to enter Syrian airspace. The reason is obvious: Bashar al-Assad is a very bad guy, and we should not be doing business with him. This is one instance where the enemy of our enemy is not our friend.

This is a man who wages war on his own people, uses chemical weapons against them. Over 200,000 people have been killed in Syria’s civil war to date; more than 3 million have become refugees in neighbouring countries, while 6 million more have been internally displaced.

In short it’s an extremely dangerous place and our special forces shouldn’t go anywhere near it. They’re already in harm’s way in Iraq, as the death of Sgt. Andrew Doiron in a friendly fire incident with Kurdish forces reminded us.

Mulcair crossed a rhetorical line when he called it ‘the prime minister’s war.’ But he was asking the right questions when he demanded the government explain what its intended endgame is, whether there is ‘a well-defined exit strategy.’

It’s not clear whether the government will send a second squadron of CF-18s to the region, but with 600 military personnel already on the ground in Kuwait, there would no problem in supporting them as part of an expanded mission. The planes have to be airborne anyway, the pilots have to get their time in — and they might as well be over Syria as over Labrador. But in question period Tuesday, Harper said “the same number” of special forces would be deployed on the ground, with no increase.

The NDP and Liberals, in opposing the extended and expanded mission, predictably proposed that Canada step up its humanitarian aid in both Iraq and Syria. Harper pre-emptively noted that Canada has helped feed 1.7 million Iraqis and has “provided shelter and relief one and a quarter million people and given some education to at least half a million children,” as well as helping 200,000 Syrian refugees in Iraq.

“There is,” Harper declared, “no either/or here between military action and humanitarian aid.” Evidently Canada is already, in dollar terms, the fifth largest provider of humanitarian aid in the region.

“We don’t have to choose between fighting ISIL or helping its victims,” Harper said. “We will continue to do both.”

For Mulcair, Iraq is “a war that is not ours.” He went further: “Mark my words, when the NDP form government, we’re going to pull our troops out, we’re going to bring them home.” It was an echo of Jack Layton’s famous line on Afghanistan: “We will support the troops by bringing them home.”

This is NDP boilerplate, and the party’s base on the left demands nothing less from Mulcair — though he has left himself no room to manouevre. (He also left himself the best soundbite of the day, accusing Harper of moving Canada “from mission creep to mission leap.”)

Part of Mulcair’s rationale for rejecting the extension is that, in his words, “it’s not a UN mission, it’s not even a NATO mission.” Well, good luck getting a UN resolution out of the Security Council, where the Russians have a veto. And while NATO may not be involved in this mission, some 60 countries are — including the Americans, the British and the French, our three closest allies.

Mulcair crossed a rhetorical line when he called it “the prime minister’s war.” But he was asking the right questions when he demanded the government explain what its intended endgame is, and whether there is “a well-defined exit strategy.”

Perhaps the parliamentary debate can shed some light on that. That’s one of the lessons we should have learned from Afghanistan. In the summer of 2005, Canada re-deployed from the relative safety of patrolling Kabul to taking on the Taliban in their stronghold of Kandahar province, without the re-profiled mission ever being debated in the House.

That happened under a Liberal prime minister, Paul Martin, who approved the mission shift on the recommendation of the chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier. And it was in Kandahar that Canada lost most of the 158 soldiers who died during our 12-year mission to Afghanistan.

Here’s hoping we learned something from that. Never again.

L. Ian MacDonald is editor of Policy, the bi-monthly magazine of Canadian politics and public policy. He is the author of five books. He served as chief speechwriter to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney from 1985-88, and later as head of the public affairs division of the Canadian Embassy in Washington from 1992-94.The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

38 comments on “As wars go, Syria is pretty safe for Harper — so far”

Mr. MacDonald the author of this piece should be asking Alberta Premier Jim Prentice what he thinks of our Grand Chess Player Prime Minister Harper in regards for his bellicose grandstanding on the world stage. Question: Did Saudi Arabia inform Mr. Harper they [ The Saudis ] were going to flood the market with cheap oil to purposely undermine Russia”s economy for backing the Assad regime of Syria and by doing so putting thousands of Albertan”s on the unemployment line? P.S Oh yes the Saudi”s threw Mr. Harper a bone with a contract for a Southern Ontario arms manufacturer. It is obvious Mr. Harper does not apply the phrase ” Once Bitten Twice Shy “.

This tragic situation is revealing how inept, ill informed and thoroughly reckless Harper and his entire gang truly are.
Listening to Jason Kenney and James Bezan, those brilliant military strategists, it is nothing short of
bloody terrifying. These men inspire zero confidence and they are pathetically inarticulate about this
horribly complicated grave mess. That is so obviously apparent to any astute listener.
As for the PM, he looked and sounded utterly dreadful today as he stumbled through his address and
failed miserably to make the case for going into Syria.
Ian MacDonald is a real disappointment and then some. We all know he can be honest, sincere and eloquent.
With this lame piece he is sadly very wrong!
Imagine in this very critical mess he says that the planes ‘may as well be over Syria as over Labrador!!’
He tap dances around the PM’s horrible performance, slags Mulcair, doesn’t even MENTION Trudeau, then ends his substandard puppet piece with a nasty tasteless slag on the Liberals!!!
MacDonald knows damned well that this IS Harper’s war and yet he still thinks he can dupe us.
Wrong again!
And surely he also knows how Harper has ‘mislead’ all of us.
The nonsense Harper and Kenney spew about war being declared on Canada is, to quote Harper,
“patently ridiculous.”

The author seems to not be troubled at all by the fact that bombing Syria without their express request and without UN Security Council authorization it is an act of war on Syria, and the supreme war crime under international law.

Seymour Hersch has already thoroughly debunked the false accusations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against their own people. UN weapons inspectors have also disputed these claims and stated that the weapons were fired from rebel held territory.

It’s sickening how the author can so easily accept that the Canadian government is about to show the world that international law no longer applies to them, just like their exceptional neighbour to the south, and are openly declaring that they are planning to commit war crimes in Syria.

This whole pretending to fight ISIS thing is a total farce anyways. For the last 6 months CF-18’s have been bombing dump trucks and empty buildings in Iraq. If the government was actually serious about defeating ISIS, which they aren’t, they should be working with their allies in the region, they should demand that the Saudis and Qataris stop funding them, put pressure on Turkey, Jordan and Israel to close their borders to ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorists, and actually work the Syrian and Iranian governments, you know, the Armies that are actually fighting and defeating ISIS. But it’s not about ISIS, it’s just a pretext for military engagement in the region, once again. The main goal of the United States remains regime change in Syria, hence, that is also little Stephen’s goal. I hope I’m wrong about this, the Syrian people have already suffered enough, we will see.

Imagine some soldiers are going to ‘die for Harper’. The truth is Canada is going to war for Harper and no one else. You read any and all polls and no one wants this except for Harper and his lil’ puppets. You read the question of the day on CBC site and 90% ‘no’ but in the CBC news they are saying poll says Canadians agree. What the h… is CBC doing to Canadians? Keeping people confused is a extreme right-wing ploy. Sad for Canada and Canadians. We are looking very backwards on the world stage.

(1) How did Mulcair cross a rhetorical line when he called it the PM’s war? As it stands now, virtually the entire opposition is against it (remains to be seen how many, if any, opposition members would actually vote with Harper), so anyone could be forgiven for calling it Harper’s war, and

(2) Assad is a known bad guy who had killed many more of his own countrymen than ISIS until now. By weakening ISIS, Harper is strengthening Assad, so how is that a politically safe play even for Harper (especially if Assad continues killing more of them after ISIS is taken care of)?

Would it make a difference in terms of his support from his Cons base? Of course not, as I suspect many in his base vote for him along ideological lines and they would do so regardless of what he does. This, however, does not apply to the non Cons who will judge him depending on the outcome of his Syrian adventure or misadventure.

One has to ask if that once respected diplomat Chris Alexander has been radicalized???
The man has made no sense to many for a long time.
Check out Frances Russell on Newswatch today…The Low Dishonest Decade.
It’s compelling disturbing stuff. Many of us see the Ukrainian mess as very very alarming on so many levels.
There is so much we are not being told and Harper’s end game is truly a menace to all of us.

Reading it makes me realize why Harper chose to ratchet up security and war policy and rhetoric. Clearly the trained media seals go into propaganda overdrive with these issues and its the only way Harper can look like a reasonable leader who does reasonable stuff. No war and the odd “journalist” might have to actually write about the Government’s real track record like accumulating the largest debt in history, failing on jobs and prosperity as the economy teeters, Canadian infrastructure crumbling along with the social safety net and health care.

That said bombing a country like Syria is declaring war on them. I don’t see how it can be viewed any other way. I am sure if some country started bombing Canada we would pretty much consider it an act of war against the Nation even it was only the Conservatives they were after.

Running to the front of the war parade as Harper tends to do in his effort to “punch above his weight” is very un- Canadian. We always had strong special forces and military capacity but we never boasted and bullied we just got the job done when and where required while shining the light on the humanitarian agenda and our generous commitments on that front.

And that is the real Harper. A man who wants to use the country’s reputation and resources as his personal platform to play out some bizarre political theatre where he is King and a dominant player on the world stage.

Its borderline delusional, yet must be appealing to some bizarre sect of Canadian Society that supports this man and his perverted conservatism.

It’s so refreshing to read your candid post here.
Harper is indeed a very dangerous man yet our press have catapulted to his sinister ways and betrayed us
massively.
I’ve been ranting about this for a long while.
Frances Russell has a great piece on Newswatch today..the Low Dishonest Decade.
The truth about the mess in Ukraine has never been told nor is any journalist decent enough to cover it.
Russell’s article gives a chilling insight into the bizarre thinking of Harper and his gang of would be generals.
This is such a grave issue, this business of war in Syria and the relentless foolish nonsense we are being
fed about Russia.
Harper, many of us believe, and are unafraid to say at this point, is a sick deeply troubled man who
is Hell bound to create unimaginable chaos. It is so obvious to so many fine people yet our docile
foolish media pretend not to see what is screaming at all of us.
How they can be so complicit is truly unfathomable and unconscionable,
Please check out Russell.
Cheers!

“No war and the odd “journalist” might have to actually write about the Government’s real track record like accumulating the largest debt in history, failing on jobs and prosperity as the economy teeters, Canadian infrastructure crumbling along with the social safety net and health care.”

What a load of hogwash…Our debt-to-GDP ratio is at 32%..it reached as high as 70% under Chretien almost causing a bond rating downgrade and was at 50% under Martin…total gibberish…our prosperity is not failing and our economy is not teetering…the only thing crumbling is the Liberal election campaign..

Well Henry old boy you do not give up easily..the first link is Canada’s federal debt clock….this debt component is the responsibility of the Harper Government..the second link is the national debt clock which combines the federal debt with all the Provincial Government debts…I have tried to keep it so simple that even a caveman would understand it..let alone a pig headed liberal

In 2002–2003, Canada changed its calculation for net debt. Before this, net debt was defined as the total liabilities minus total assets; now it is the total liabilities minus financial assets, as the government prefers the concept of “accumulated deficit”, which corresponds to the old definition of net debt.

When you say it was higher back then, that is because they used a different way of calculating it than now. Now it is actually higher than it was during Chretien’s and Martin’s era. But then being a CONbot, you always make _hit up and argue anything said by someone not CON. However,. I really don’t care what you say, and after digging find that most people ignore your made up crap. Go back to fishing, at least you don’t lie about knowing how to do that. And now I am going to ignore you as well. Wish I knew about you ahead of time, so I didn’t waste my time.

post your evidence …I posted mine…of course you can’t because the truth does not matter to you…the key indicators …debt per capita and debt-to-GDP … not support your claim and absolute numbers are not applicable since the population has grown by 35% since Chretien was elected. back in 1992..the fact you are now pissed off and are giving excuses for weaseling off is my reward for calling you out as a bullshit artist…I don’t make stuff up and back all my claims with hard evidence…that is why the other B.S. artists steer clear…I’ll be watching for you loser

In 2002–2003, Canada changed its calculation for net debt. Before this, net debt was defined as the total liabilities minus total assets; now it is the total liabilities minus financial assets, as the government prefers the concept of “accumulated deficit”, which corresponds to the old definition of net debt.

Can’t even get that right. And you said since Chretien was PM, which would have been since 2003.

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien PC OM CC QC known commonly as Jean Chrétien is a Canadian statesman who served as the 20th Prime Minister of Canada. He served in the position for over ten years, from November 4, 1993 to December 12, 2003..

Harper also grew the GDP to the largest in history however in the usual liberal format only cherry pick stats that support the ideology….then post a load of personal opinion and state it as fact…you are a mile wide and an inch deep…

And, for your further dining and dancing pleasure……….here is how the HarperCons managed to incur those record levels of debt……..DESPITE cancelling programs and cutting services to the bone, which under normal circumstances, would have produced a surplus every year !!

– $611 million in partisan advertising spending ($548 million 2008-2011; another $63 million for 2014)

No, he is right on target with facts, not assertions–largest GDP in our entire history?—name the figure—just not true….I believe Harper is the one and only party leader to run up the largest procurement costs without buying anything —not a fighter, etc, etc. And when the only economic egg in his basket is resources, especially oil then the predicted deflation, makes for a contraction (which is said to have happened in January 2015)—leading to further ( long term economic stagnation) ….These are the facts and quite frankly have been for some time—hey what’s up with the missing budget, is that anything like those missing classified documents that just happened to be forgotten….nay just the figures in the budget won’t fudge up like the missing 3.1 billion…..? Oops. No problem why bother telling Canadian taxpayers the truth when Harper doing so well with false flag assertions and fear-mongering—know most are more afraid of job losses and not providing for the families now and in the future….not mentally ill petty-criminals re-branded in 2 hours for the 6 o’clock news (never seen a bigger gleeful grin on Harper as he made his first ‘terrorism’ announcement in parliament…Only from Alberta …..pity..as I admired Mr Lougheed.

well Marge . I doubt that you would accept the truth of the matter , notwithstanding the preponderance of evidence put before you…in any event, here are a few facts for you top refute..
GDP…2005 = $1.164 trillion
GDP…2014 = $1.838 trillionhttp://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/gdp

Totally agree,even a long time conservative like Peter Lougheed would be disgusted with what Harper and his neocons have done to undermine all their once important precepts. Harper is that weird uncomfortable guy that never fit in and is sociopathic enough, to use and manipulate anyone including our Vets to ‘as you put it-to justify a seat among the other crop of leader-idiots we now have to put up with..Just once to force a meeting of their corporate minders to finally demand they pay their own way (no subsidies) –including fight their own wars (for resources). What a reversal, we could find out once and for all if any of them could stand up alone without the constant stream of taxpayers dollars to use but not repay,that none of the medium or small businesses have ever asked for or tried to manipulate for.

Absolutely agree with you. This journalist is know for his love for all things Harper. He just can’t help himself. There are so many Harper loving Journalists these days that the few that actually care about Canada and being Canadian and well known and followed by the many that agree with them. The Harper loving journalists will be sorry some day when they find they are not trusted or taken seriously.

If Harper’s claims of the amount of generosity in donations, assistance, education and relief for Iraqi refugees were all true then Canada would have been heralded as one country that came through and made good all their promised donations and help—But that is not the case, so I question the veracity of every claim made by and wonder why no one else has checked these claims…?